AG -v- Michel [2007] JRC 203 (19 October 2007)

AG -v- Michel [2007] JRC 203 (19 October 2007)

The court held that Michel had benefited from relevant criminal conduct wherever underlying criminality was established, and that benefit equated to the value of property obtained or controlled, not limited to fees or profit. The court applied statutory assumptions where appropriate, found Michel exercised sufficient control to justify full-value confiscation, and determined realisable assets accordingly. Discretion to reduce the order was not exercised as no sufficient grounds were found. The confiscation order was made in the amount of the benefit as determined, subject to the value of Michel's realisable assets.

Citation
[2007] JRC 203
Parties
Prosecution: The Attorney General; Defendant: Peter Wilson Michel
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
19 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Confiscation Proceedings / Post Conviction, Determination of Confiscation Order
Outcome
Confiscation order granted against Peter Michel in the amount of his benefit from criminal conduct, limited to his realisable assets.
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Benefit From Criminal Conduct, Realisable Assets, Discretion in Confiscation, Statutory Assumptions
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Money Laundering Confiscation Orders Benefit From Criminal Conduct Realisable Assets Discretion in Confiscation Statutory Assumptions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Attorney General

Prosecution

Peter Wilson Michel

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Confiscation Proceedings / Post Conviction, Determination of Confiscation Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant benefited from relevant criminal conduct
  2. 2 Whether a confiscation order should be made and in what amount
  3. 3 How to determine 'benefit' under the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Michel had benefited from relevant criminal conduct wherever underlying criminality was established, and that benefit equated to the value of property obtained or controlled, not limited to fees or profit. The court applied statutory assumptions where appropriate, found Michel exercised sufficient control to justify full-value confiscation, and determined realisable assets accordingly. Discretion to reduce the order was not exercised as no sufficient grounds were found. The confiscation order was made in the amount of the benefit as determined, subject to the value of Michel's realisable assets.

Court Disposition

Confiscation order granted against Peter Michel in the amount of his benefit from criminal conduct, limited to his realisable assets.

Orders

  • Confiscation order made in the sum of £9,730,152 (after adjusting for double counting and inflation) or the value of realisable assets, whichever is less.
  • Assets identified as realisable property to be subject to enforcement of the order.